7 / 29
sections
6 7 5 4 32 1
page / 7
CLEAN WATER ACT ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes
a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or
fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States regu-
lated under this program include fill for development,
water resource projects (such as dams and levees),
infrastructure development (such as highways and air-
ports) and mining projects. Section 404 requires a per-
mit before dredged or fill material may be discharged
into waters of the United States, unless the activity is
exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g., certain farm-
ing and forestry activities).
Under Section 404(e) of the CWA and 33 CFR Parts 325
and 330, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has
the authority to issue general permits for categories
of similar activities that have a minimal impact on the
aquatic environment, both individually and cumulatively.
These general permits are analogous to the PAs dis-
cussed throughout this Roadmap. USACE issues three
types of general permits: Nationwide Permits (NWPs),
Regional General Permits (RGPs), and programmatic
general permits (PGPs). NWPs apply across the country
while USACE districts develop RGPs and PGPs that may
apply district-wide or to a particular geographic area.
RGPs and PGPs are also for categories of work with
minimal impacts to the aquatic environment but used
within a smaller geographic area such as a USACE dis-
trict, a watershed, or a county. Similar to NWPs, USACE
highly recommends using RGP and PGP for project
types with minimal impacts to the aquatic environment,
and that appear to meet the terms and conditions of an
existing RGP or PGP.
Development of an RGP or PGP is most appropriate
when a transportation agency recognizes that they
must frequently seek authorization for a particular activ-
ity, like culvert replacement or ditch maintenance, which
usually results in minimal impacts to the aquatic envi-
ronment. Either a USACE district may decide to develop
an RGP or PGP, or a transportation agency may request
their local USACE district to develop one. These could
be activities already covered by another RGP or NWP,
for which there is a desire to modify the acreage limits
or the notification thresholds to allow for broader ap-
plicability. For a transportation agency, demonstrating a
track record of frequently reoccurring projects/actions
with generally minimal impacts and predictable results
helps the USACE district to determine more quickly if an
RGP or PGP is feasible.
The process of developing an RGP or PGP requires a
public notice, requesting comments from the public,
and then comments are addressed while completing
any necessary consultations (such as those required for
protected species or historic and cultural resources).
After complying with NEPA, (as well as obtaining any
other necessary approvals), the District Engineer makes
the determination to issue or deny the RGP or PGP. Also
similar to NWP, RGP and PGP are valid for a five-year
period in which a project sponsor may seek approval
from USACE for an activity under the RGP or PGP. In the
case of a PGP, a project sponsor may work with another
entity, frequently a State or municipal agency, which
administers the PGP on USACE’s behalf. If a transporta-
tion agency is interested in pursuing development of
an RGP or PGP, it should consider a proposed scope of
activities to be covered by the RGP or PGP, and then
contact the local USACE district office. FHWA Division
offices can help facilitate this outreach.
Beyond programmatic permits such as RGPs or PGPs,
programmatic agreements that merge the requirements
of NEPA and CWA can also provide a more predict-
able and efficient review on transportation project. In
September 2015, FHWA in partnership with USACE, the
United States Coast Guard, Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, released
the
2015 RED BOOK .The Red Book provides a “how
to” guide for synchronizing NEPA and other federal
reviews, including developing a merger agreement, a
PA that establishes a process for satisfying the require-
ments of the permitting agencies through a synchro-
nized NEPA and permitting review process.